Non-Negative Matrix Factorization Using Partial Prior Knowledge for Radiation Dosimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hyperspectral unmixing aims at decomposing a given signal into its spectral signatures and its associated fractional abundances. To improve the accuracy of this decomposition, algorithms have included different assumptions depending on the application. The goal of this study is to develop a new unmixing algorithm that can be applied for the calibration of multipoint scintillation dosimeters used in the field of radiation therapy. This new algorithm is based on a non-negative matrix factorization. It incorporates a partial prior knowledge on both the abundances and the endmembers of a given signal. It is shown herein that, following a precise calibration routine, it is possible to use partial prior information about the fractional abundances, as well as on the endmembers, in order to perform a simplified yet precise calibration of these dosimeters. Validation and characterization of this algorithm is made using both simulations and experiments. The experimental validation shows an improvement in accuracy compared to previous algorithms with a mean spectral angle distance (SAD) on the estimated endmembers of 0.0766, leading to an average error of$(0.25 \pm 0.73)$% on dose measurements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".